The new NASA study relied on the high-tech imaging instrument known as MODIS, contained aboard NASA's Terra satellite. (Source: NASA)

A chart detailing the airflow over the Pacific. Note the airflow towards the polar region that crosses from Asia, near Japan and China up towards British Columbia and down the west coast of the U.S. (Source: NASA)

Is poor air quality in America the fault of China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan?

There's been much conjecture that China's vast industrialization produces heavy pollution, not only to East Asia, but to North America as well. Air currents, which flow between Asia and North America, are thought to carry industrial pollution overseas to the U.S. and Canada. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are also extremely industrialized and highly populated and also contribute significant airborne emissions of toxic sulfur and nitrogen compounds into the air.

China's rapid expansion cleared vast tracks of land. Much of this land is cleared by slash and burn methods, which release airborne pollution. Accidental forest fires also occur frequently. Further, China's automobile population has skyrocket. Many of the automobiles do not have up to date exhaust controls as American automobiles do. This leads to the release of carbon monoxide and other pollutants. China's network of factories and coal plants pump literally tons of toxins into the atmosphere, helping to make China the world leader in greenhouse gas production.

One of the NASA researchers on the study, Hongbin Yu, an associate research scientist of the University of
Maryland Baltimore County working at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
in Greenbelt, Md., grew up in China and witnessed first hand the damage done on the environment and the local population's health by the uncontrolled expansion. Yu and his team will be working for the first time to analyze aerosol flow in the fast moving airstream that crosses the Pacific, traveling from East Asia to North America.

Aerosols are a standard type of air pollution, consisting of a suspension of droplets. These droplets can contain many toxic chemicals. High aerosol exposure in industrial settings can lead to many health problems, the impact of lesser degrees of exposure has not been entirely examined.

The study's first results come courtesy of measurements from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), an instrument on NASA's Terra satellite. The results, which will be published in the American Geophysical Union’s Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, confirm that between 2002 and 2005 East Asia exported nearly 18 teragrams of pollution into the air stream over the Pacific, with 4.5 teragrams reaching North America. A teragram is a unit used to measure atmospheric mass of aerosol pollution. One teragram equals 2.2 billion pounds, so the study shows that nearly 10 billion pounds of Asian aerosol pollution reached American shores in a 3 year span.

Yu puts this in perspective, stating, "We used the latest satellite capabilities to distinguish industrial
pollution and smoke from dust transported to the western regions of
North America from East Asia. Looking at four years of data from 2002
to 2005 we estimated the amount of pollution arriving in North America
to be equivalent to about 15 percent of local emissions of the U.S. and
Canada. This is a significant percentage at a time when the U.S. is trying to
decrease pollution emissions to boost overall air quality. This means
that any reduction in our emissions may be offset by the pollution
aerosols coming from East Asia and other regions."

According to Yu, though East Asia is not solely at fault as pollution travels with the airstream from North America to other continents as well. He states that the study only seeks to analyze the Asian pollution input into North America's air. He explains, "Our study focused on East Asian pollution transport, but pollution also
flows from Europe, North America, the broader Asian region and
elsewhere, across bodies of water and land, to neighboring areas and
beyond. So we should not simply blame East Asia for this amount of pollution flowing into North America."

Mian Chin, also a co-author of this study and an atmospheric scientist at NASA Goddard agrees with Yu's cautions and states that he believes that much of North America's pollution may come from Europe as well. NASA may carry out additional studies to examine this possibility.

Lorraine Remer, a physical scientist and member of the MODIS science team at NASA Goddard points out that the study is a cutting edge experience that relies on the most modern sensor technology. MODIS can distinguish between many types of atmospheric particles and can accurately track them as they rise out of the troposphere, where we live and breath, into the upper atmosphere, where they are transported overseas. Says Remer, "Satellite instruments give us the ability to capture more accurate
measurements, on a nearly daily basis across a broader geographic
region and across a longer time frame so that the overall result is a
better estimate than any other measurement method we’ve had in the past."

The greatest pollution influx occurred in 2003, due a set of large forest fires in East Asia and Russia. The researchers determined that it takes approximately a week for pollutants to travel from Asia to North America.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I work as an importer, I know for a fact it would be cheaper over all to bring the factures back. The probably is the USA Government has given to many tax breaks to move business over seas, so now we have less jobs in the USA, less taxes give to the Government, and save no money by producing over seas. We are just giving away money to anyother country and receiving no true benefit. If China were to truely (equally) buy from the USA as the USA does from China (the original plan). Then maybe it would pay off for both countries. Right now, this is just one of several things killing our economy.

sorry about the spelling errors and typos guys. I doing to many thing at the same time today.....one of them was, "probably" in the second line. Should have been, "problem". Yep there are a few more...my bad.

There's several reasons why it's more efficient to keep factories there -- or, in fact, to move them to other cheaper places in SE Asia or Africa.

1. America smothers is businesses is regulation2. We have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world3. America has some of the most expesive labor in the world4. Looking forward, anti-business and anti-trade rhetoric is on the rise.

Point 1 can't be overstated enough, and point 4 is important because of the increasingly integrated nature of international business, point 2 plays in to that as well. Somehow I don't think huge corporate tax breaks, union busting and other labor reform, and lower regulation in general won't sell to the general public at the moment, so none of the above is likely to change.

Of course, the long term solution isn't clinging to yesterday's job. The only way to get those back is to outlaw robotics and automated industrial processes. No, the solution is getting off our lazy asses and learning the skills needed in a post-industrial era. We're not an industrial economy any more, we've ascended to the next stage, just as China has ascended to the industrial age from an agrarian one.

The only thing unions bring to the table is poor workmanship, expensive wages, and labor strikes. The age of the union is over.

What ever happened to personal responsiblity. I do not have the luxary of being an average worker. I have to constantly strive for more education and a great skill set. As a result, I get promotions and more responsibility.

The union IS responsible for the degradation of our local tradesmen. In the past, it was the talented and skilled tradesmen that recieved the jobs. It was expected to apprentice for 8-10 years before being considered master level. Now, union retoric, tells every member they should expect compensation regardless of performance level.

Job go over seas for several prime reasons. 1. U.S. tradesmen are lazy and do not create quality work. 2. U.S. trademen due to unions have made them TOO expensive. 3. Union works have no desire to change or make themselves stand out through quality workmanship and fair wages.

Do not lecture me about the value of unions. All unions should be disolved and workers should be responsible for their own education, workmanship, and advancement. If you think this is harsh.

Go ask the UAW, airline pilot, and other remaining large unions how they are doing.

Who is talking about rich. If rick you mean poeple that use this counties education system to become successful, then I guess they are rich.

Grast covered it quite well. Furthermore, though, since I'm apparently speaking like a "conservative", feel free to ask a European finance minister of almost any political stripe what must be done. This quote has been dragged out many times, but I'll use it again. "We know what we have to do, just not how to get re-elected after we do it." They are speaking, of course, of labor reforms. Busting unions, making it easier to hire and fire workers, removing wage controls and work-week caps. Socialists, right-of-center parties, etc, they'd all agree and all admit it. In private, of course.

Read through almost any edition of The Economist, there's usually something in there along those lines since it's such a looming issue.

Yes we absolutely do. It's what keeps America from forcing 12-year-olds to work for 1/4 of minimum wage for 12 hours a day.

quote: 2. We have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world

We also have some of the highest wages in the world, some of the best workers' benefits in the world, the shortest work week in the world, and some of the best retirement benefits in the world, all in the economy and country by which all others are judged.

Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad.

quote: 3. America has some of the most expesive [sic] labor in the world

Covered in #2.

quote: 4. Looking forward, anti-business and anti-trade rhetoric is on the rise.

Not anti , but unfair . There's a difference.

On a side note...

There was an interesting posting on the story about the femtosecond laser:

quote: Slashdot: But does it run Linux?Engadget: Does it work with my iPhone?DailyTech: Can I mount it on my C130H gunship?

Rated a "6", BTW.

Then it occurred to me, this isn't really "Daily Tech"; it's "Red State Tech". How else can you explain that the second and third "Most Popular Articles" revolve around Michael Asher's articles entitled: "Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (February 26, 2008) and

quote: Yes we absolutely do. It's what keeps America from forcing 12-year-olds to work for 1/4 of minimum wage for 12 hours a day.

Cheapshot, and not an issue that businesses complain about at all in this country. So far, you're clearly trolling, since I know that you know better. That or perhaps you really don't know what I was referring to, but I suspect you chose instead to make a nice emotional appeal instead of one on the issues.

quote: We also have some of the highest wages in the world, some of the best workers' benefits in the world, the shortest work week in the world, and some of the best retirement benefits in the world, all in the economy and country by which all others are judged.

I'm not the one complaining about the loss of jobs, so I'd agree. However, that's got nothing to do with the point of taxes, but I guess you just felt the need to respond to absolutely everything.

quote: Not anti , but unfair . There's a difference.

Fairness has no place in economic discussions; it's subjective. Once you start down that dark road of mixing almost religious beliefs about fairness and equity and forcing these things in to trade deals then suddenly all sorts of things can be rationalized. On an intellectual level, David Ricardo proved 191 years ago that trade protectionists then and liberals now are wrong; all parties can benefit from trade, even without "fairness" requirements, like harmonized labor standards, etc. On an honesty level, it's outrageous liberals talk about how we should respect foreign cultures on the one hand, and then seem so keen to force our ethical standards on them via trade deals, regardless of how they feel about it and regardless of what stage of economic development they're at. Regardless, their position on trade, free or not, as reflected by their voting record is crystal clear.

I'd also warn it's a two way street if we reopen NAFTA. Canada would probably love to bend us over the barrel with labor standards and environmental policy themselves, and Mexico no doubt would love to lobby us on immigration. If we walked away entirely, well, I assume/hope you're smart enough to understand how disasterous that could be.

Speaking of NAFTA, Obama obviously knows all the above is true, since he gave the ol' wink-wink to the Canadian government via his chief economic advisor (who is from the bastion of what you would be tempted to call conservative economics, University of Chicago).

quote: Cheapshot, and not an issue that businesses complain about at all in this country. So far, you're clearly trolling, since I know that you know better. That or perhaps you really don't know what I was referring to, but I suspect you chose instead to make a nice emotional appeal instead of one on the issues.

I'm not "trolling" at all, and this was not a cheap shot; it is in fact very particular to your original point, which was "America smothers is [sic] businesses is [sic] regulation". So going back to that statement, child labor laws are a business regulation. So are anti-trust laws, accounting laws, price gouging laws, and predatory practice laws. Would you have been more comfortable with any of these other alternatives?

quote:

quote: We also have some of the highest wages in the world, some of the best workers' benefits in the world, the shortest work week in the world, and some of the best retirement benefits in the world, all in the economy and country by which all others are judged.

I'm not the one complaining about the loss of jobs, so I'd agree. However, that's got nothing to do with the point of taxes, but I guess you just felt the need to respond to absolutely everything.

Loss of jobs has absolutely nothing to do with my response; you clearly misread it, so I'll clarify the point for you:

You complained that "We have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world", to which I replied that yes, we do have some of the highest taxes in the world. But we also have some of the highest profits and perks in the world, which tend to offset each other. Additionally, since business is still being conducted everywhere in America while making a decent profit, it's a complete non-starter of an issue.

quote: Fairness has no place in economic discussions; it's subjective.

Fairness is the absolute basis of economic discussions. Is it fair to let an 11-year old kid work in a steel mill? Is it fair to exclude blacks from entering a dining establishment, or having them enter from the back door? Is it fair to have a market without wheelchair access? There are limitations of course, and these limitations are and will continue to be explored and challenged. I believe my points are valid. And if you don't agree with them, that's fine and that's your right; however the United States of America does agree with me, and that's good enough.

On to other points in your wildly far-reaching and unfocused "reply" (although 'rant' is a far more accurate description): You've somehow managed to turn a completely well-thought reply into a personal attack, an insult, a political attack, and intimated a familiarity with me that you simply don't have.

Ringold, every single point you made initially was wrong. Take the entire child labor issue we just covered -- you got your hackles up that I would have the temerity to raise *that* particular issue. And when you have no coherent rebuttal, you accuse me of making a 'cheapshot' and focusing on emotion instead of issues.

You really should try and focus your thoughts before presenting them. And just so you'll have this information for future reference, insults are always the last bastion of a lost argument.

quote: Would you have been more comfortable with any of these other alternatives?

This is the sort of stuff that gets me going. Surely you don't think any of those are what makes small business in America uncompetitive, or at least that those are things they complain about? I've spoke to many small business owners, and never had a print shop owner turn to me and say, "You know, man, if I could just hire 5 year old and make them work 15 hour shifts, I bet with their tiny hands they could clear paper jams a lot easier than I could!"

Price gouging, though, some would object to, I'll admit that much. Price gouging roils many economists; it is, in principle, not immoral, but simply manifestations in markets representing extreme demand or extreme supply issues that makes politicians feel uncomfortable when people who feel entitled to lower prices go to the polls. Shortages and inefficient allocation of limited resources (and the encouragement of black markets) is the result of 'anti-price gouging laws', but doesn't make for a good sound bite or make people feel good.

As for the rest, I'll address it further down, but also, talking with some SB owners would be beneficial, of the 1-100 employee range in particular, where the owners face, often by themselves, the full weight of federal, state and local regulation.

quote: But we also have some of the highest profits and perks in the world, which tend to offset each other. Additionally, since business is still being conducted everywhere in America while making a decent profit, it's a complete non-starter of an issue.

Must I define opportunity cost? Obviously, business still operates here. Business still operates in Zimbabwe, despite 100,500% estimated inflation. The point is, when businesses like Dow Chemical get on CNBC and talk about all the billions they are investing in their company over the next several years with not a single dollar being spent in America (in their case, because the states they operate in refuse to allow them to tap in to natural gas reserves, so they're building new plants in Saudi Arabia), or when companies like Chrysler merge and decide to headquarters not in America but in Germany (and bringing those high paying corporate jobs with them there) because of a more favorable tax environment (14% lower tax bill I believe), how much better could it be in America with reforms? If you lower yourself to looking at dirty things like facts, we know from observing changes in Irelands tax structure, as well as examples from Eastern Europe (which has embraced Reaganomics), Hong Kong and other places that lower taxes spurs higher growth. We can similarly observe that while business still operates profitably in France, France has suffered immensely from its higher taxes and regulations in comparison to its peers.

quote: Is it fair to exclude blacks from entering a dining establishment, or having them enter from the back door?

Unfortunately, as much as you'd like to mix the fields of political science and economics, there are good reasons why they try quite hard to remain separate areas of study. It's the job of politicians to jaw-bone and figure out what societies goals are and concepts of what is fair or not, it's the job of economics to figure out how most efficiently to achieve those goals; normative and positive issues, respectively. Positive economic theory can approach competitive trade issues without dipping in the dark pit of politics and concepts of fairness; again, Ricardo proved countries like the US with stringent policies and higher paid, higher productivity workers can trade with lax, low-paid, underproductive Mexico and both states can gain. The example I believe he used was England and Portugal, which at the time.. actually isn't much different than the current US-Mexico issue.

quote: Ringold, every single point you made initially was wrong. Take the entire child labor issue we just covered -- you got your hackles up that I would have the temerity to raise *that* particular issue.

I absolutely did because it is not an issue small business cares about, nor has it been in our lifetimes! You're trying to bring up a red-herring. They care about slip-and-fall liability (or anything, in fact, that involves lawyers, because even if they're innocent they are saddled with huge costs), Sarbanes-Oxley, having health care dumped on their shoulders, archaic and complicated tax laws, unfair rent-seeking behavior, many have issues with IP laws -- thats just a sampling of the general thorny issues, customs and exports regulations, and every industry and sub-industry has mountains of regulations specific to it, down to the minimum size cage pigs can be placed in, the percentage of wall space that must be bare, etc. These things are not without cost.

Even CNN is aware its a problem;

quote: It's no exagerration to say that entrepreneurs are being crushed by regulatory costs. A 2005 report by the Small Business Administration found that small firms spend $2,400 more per employee, on average, than bigger counterparts to keep up with the demands of Uncle Sam.

The two most daunting burdens, according to the study, are environmental compliance and - you guessed it - taxes. Following rules set by the EPA and other agencies costs small businesses 364 percent more per worker than it does larger enterprises. Staying out of tax court takes 67 percent more out of their pockets per employee than it does in big corporations. Although most business owners don't want to break environmental or tax regulations, even the most well-intentioned can get confused by the fine print.

- CNN, FSB

Those are all the sorts of things small businesses complain about -- they do not complain about, generally, any of the issues you tried to raise. Hence, I assumed mere trolling, but perhaps it was just being misinformed.

In case you wonder why small biz is worthy of such discussion, virtually all job growth in this nation since 1980 is from small business. Large and mega-cap companies employment has been essentially flat; they provide the nation with economies of scale, but not so much jobs. Small business is footloose; many businessmen can and do pick up their firms and move abroad if it benefits them, you can see this taking place right now as hedge funds and smaller finance businesses flee England's non-dom tax hikes for Zurich, NYC and other cities (and taking their millions of income, and local spending, with them as well), so being globally competitive on all of the above is important.

I have supported above all of my original points, all but the last one in this post alone, while you have failed to produce theory or evidence to contradict any of them. As far as the 4th point, that rising anti-trade rhetoric is damaging trade relations, I reference again the week before lasts edition of The Economist, which noted trade officials from our North American and South American trade partners being nervous about it and the wide sense of utter betrayal in places like Colombia. I don't know what more you want, asides from a discussion, perhaps, of how ethical or unethical the Factory Acts of 1819 in the UK where.

I certainly don't see you complaining about tax breaks and regulatory relief specifically designed to help small businesses, such as startup cost deductions, section 179 deductions, and domestic production activities deductions, among others. And for that matter, I don't hear much in the way of large corporations complaining about these tax breaks either.

quote: never had a print shop owner turn to me and say, "You know, man, if I could just hire 5 year old and make them work 15 hour shifts, I bet with their tiny hands they could clear paper jams a lot easier than I could!"

Yes, but ask that same print shop owner if he'd hire a 15-year old to work 16 hours on a Saturday for $3.00/hr, I'm sure you'd find him changing his tune faster than a reggae band at a Klan cookout.

quote: I absolutely did because it is not an issue small business cares about, nor has it been in our lifetimes!

But it was an example of a business regulation. I'm 42, so it *was* in my lifetime.

And this is the point which I'm going to just sign off. Ringold, neither of the posts for which I responded made any differentiation about small or large business. And quite frankly, we were talking about large businesses because there aren't that many mom-and-pop operations that are farming their manufacturing or support overseas. Now that all of your initial arguments and statements have been nullified, you're resorting to micro managing the minutiae of opinion and what kinds of businesses that are being adversely affected by regulation. You don't like the analogies I bring without allowing for the fact that the biggest tools in the box are the first ones we generally see.

Your whole assertion is that business in America is being crippled because of too much taxation and regulation. My rebuttal is that taxation is necessary and regulation is critically essential.

My points were nullified? By what? That someone somewhere might want to higher a teenager?

We're not going to agree, but I'll just point out I'm friends with and have worked for a highly respected PhD economist from Sweden who is an avowed socialist -- and she would've made the same arguments I did, and would probably be just as annoyed with your continued adherence to the child labor red herring rather than looking at the impact of over regulation (note I never said there should be none) and higher relative tax rates and how they correlate with growth and prosperity.

Well, I am in the logisitics field, there is no waythe company I work for will move any of themanufacturing back into the US. Actually we movedone of the last manufacturing projects overseas abouta year ago. Even with fuel costs skyrocketing, thecompany is still searching for even more cheap labor.

quote: Even with fuel costs skyrocketing, the company is still searching for even more cheap labor.

Anything to save a buck. Instead of worrying about the bottom line, Corporations need to understand that the shoddy products they get for the cheaper price will in the long run, be worse than saving today's dollar. Although, by the time that happens, the Board of Directors and all Officers will have retired on their 400,000 dollar a year severance packages.

For the most part, that's true. However, what you're not acknowledging is that companies don't operate in a vacuum, and they're usually competing with other companies to sell you a product. The way they do this primarily is by enticing you with a lower price, and since it's illegal to sell you a product for less than they can produce it (predatory pricing -- look it up or ask Microsoft about it) they have find ways to produce it cheaper to remain competitive.

For example, labor is a huge source of cost; if they can legally hire a 12-year old girl in Cambodia for 50 cents an hour as opposed to $48.50 an hour for some American union member and produce the same quality product, guess which one they're going to choose?

And while I'm sure my good friend Ringold will have a few words to say about my choice of analogies there, the sad fact is that we, the consumer, are largely responsible for this state of affairs. By continuing to purchase these low-cost goods, we are perpetuating the cycle, thus disincentivising any real reforms that would allow American made products to be competitive on their own, without trade tariffs or other pricing adjustments.

quote: Instead of worrying about the bottom line...

This statement really is the one that prompted me to respond. The bottom line is the most important thing to any corporation, that's why it's called "The Bottom Line"; if it's not, then the entity ceases to be a company and becomes a charity.

America is a capitalistic society. For all our grandiose posturing about Freedom and Democracy, we all live in a country where our well-being and pursuit of happiness is generally equated with wealth. That's not necessarily a bad thing either, and I would also try to disavow you of the notion that 'profit' is a dirty word.

In principle, I understand your position, and up to a point even agree with you. Unfortunately, the way things are and the way things should be aren't the same.

I'm not sure which sector you're looking at but my field is in engineering and manufacturing. Since the first Bush too office, I can remember transitioning the entire manufacturing capability over to china. In fact, we're doing it now with my current company. There are risks involved but overall the board execs wants to see profit. By having produce the products at a very cheap rate they're happy. For companies I've worked with before it definitely is about the lower cost, no matter the cost.